In a perfect world, peace and unity
should be possible for everyone, and that universal goal or impossible
dream, depending on your point of view - was the underlying theme
at a symposium, entitled "From Tragedy to Unity: A Celebration
of the Human Spirit," presented by the Virtue Foundation
at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York on September 11th,
2002, a day when most of New York came to a standstill to mourn
the memory of the fallen on the first anniversary of the terrorist
attacks on the World Trade Center in tributes and services across
the city.

The objective of the symposium was to debate
large and seemingly unfathomable issues: Why do tragedies like
9/11 occur? What might the possible solutions be? What can we,
as Americans, do better in terms of communication with other cultures,
or alter in terms of our perceived behavior, to avert dragging
civilization back to the darkness and carnage which manifested
itself so chillingly on the morning of 9/11/2001.

Unity with the world outside America seemed unattainable for so
many reasons on this day, one year later, as the media and our
own memories made us re-live the kind of hate embodied in the
destroyed twin towers and the thousands of innocent lives lost.
"Hate" is not a pleasant word, but 9/11 was an atrocity,
it was a hateful act. It detached America suddenly and without
pity from the illusion that it was part of the global community.
America had never been attacked on "home soil" since
Pearl Harbor during World War II. A whole generation of young
Americans watched as the towers burned in downtown Manhattan,
and learned a lot about vulnerability and established notions
of invincibility.

Sad memories returned of the dead: some so young they were in
their first job, straight out of college; civilians who worked
in suburbs and cities surrounding New York; immortalized in newspaper
obituaries; lives and faces still fresh in American minds and
hearts from the thousands of fliers placed in desperation throughout
the city by grieving families, friends and employers. An innocent
part of all Americans was lost in the destruction of that day.
It was, and is, hard to shake the anger, the numbness and the
sense of loss.

As I entered the symposium I thought that understanding
an atrocity like the World Trade Center attack was not possible.
What I really meant probably was that I did not want to understand:
it was unforgivable; end of story.

However, the program was not the usual academic
gathering, but included many prominent figures in many different
arenas who clearly believed that the objective of the symposium
was a worthy one. By day's end, the hard wall that locked in the
sadness had transformed into something quite different - a glimmer
of hope for the future of mankind and the planet thanks to the
often wise and even humorous opinions put forth. It is a pity
that such balanced and intelligent perspectives are not more widely
reported.

Two planes and a handful of terrorists demolished two towering
symbols of America's economic might. Imagine, I found myself thinking,
the aftermath of a nuclear or biological strike on an American
city? The incredible and uplifting heroism, courage and unity
witnessed by the world in the aftermath of 9/11 would be physically
impossible under such circumstances. Radiation or dangerous germs
in the air would not permit heroic actions, except possibly in
a bio-hazard suit and mask. We did not cower in fear after 9/11,
but how would it be if an even greater catastrophy were to occur,
like smallpox? Seated in the protective confines of the Grace
Rainey Rogers auditorium of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, it
was not easy to contemplate the new America. 9/11 changed everything.

The meeting's theme of an universal ethic and
the concept of unity seemed like a late-night college bull session
topic, but these were not sophmoric speakers.

Invited members of four multi-disciplinary panels "Arts and
Culture," "Science and Spirituality," "Business
and Finance" and "Media and Politics" were invited
to discuss and to explore through the various disciplines, the
reasons, resentments and misconceptions that led to the events
of 9/11, in an attempt to break a vicious cycle which has too
often ended in violence.

When I arrived, late, the "Arts and Culture"
panelists were in the midst of an animated discussion on diversity:
Glenn Lowry, Director of the Museum of Modern Art, Maxwell Andersen,
Director of the Whitney Museum of American Art, Vishaka N. Desai,
director of museum and cultural programs of the Asia Society and
John Rockwell, Senior Cultural Correspondent of The New York
Times formed an impressive line-up.

Mr. Andersen said that it had become increasingly
difficult for foreign artists - and virtually impossible in the
case of Middle Eastern artists and performers - to enter the United
States since 9/11. He called it a "troubling" development,
"because we need artists from other countries even more now."
These artists, he said, had always found in the openness of the
United States a safe-haven to express what they could not do within
the confines of their own repressive regimes. His comments made
me contemplate the impossibility of a symposium as open as this
in Iraq, or Syria or Saudi Arabia. Such events take place only
"in the land of the free." It is a gift to be cherished,
drawn larger after 9/11.

In New York City, there are hundreds of diverse
cultural events daily. The arts have always been one of the more
open forums of global diversity and exchange. Freedom of artistic,
intellectual and personal expression is instantly felt by anyone
who has never had it before and then discovers the joy of it upon
entering America, most especially in New York. It is in the air,
a beautiful thing. Perhaps that is why the terrorists chose New
York to make their most deadly statement.

Listening to the observations of Maxwell Andersen,
I recalled a recent exhibit on Arab-Americans at the Museum of
the City of New York in which a black and white photograph showed
a veiled Arab-American mother proudly holding a picture of her
son, a handsome young soldier in the United States armed forces,
at a 9/11/01 vigil. All around her people were holding candles.
This mother was showing proof of her love for this country with
a photograph of her most prized possession, her son. He did not
look much older than 19, eyes filled with idealism and patriotism.

There are many people from the Middle East
who love America, and who have felt the winds of change in the
months since 9/11. Some innocent citizens - victims of a new fear
that the enemy is now among us, armed with American citizenship
- may even be wrongfully detained. Editorial headlines like "Seeking
Terrorist Plots, the F.B.I. Is Tracking Hundreds of Muslims,"
fuel the fires of terrorists, who must delight in the chaos they
have caused to their own countrymen who dared defect for America.
Troubling implications indeed for thousands who may never enter
America from Middle Eastern countries who wish to escape tyranny.

The trust which, until 9/11, was a hallmark
of the American way of life, and which fostered and encouraged
diversity and exchange between all cultures, was one of the casualties
of 9/11. In the long run, we will have to consider whether we
are better or worse off without that exchange.

John Rockwell of The New York Times commented that sometimes
these decisions to block entry to foreigners are very "erratically
decided." "Economic and political concerns become illegal
immigrants," he said humorously, to applause in the auditorium,
but Mr. Rockwell continued in a serious tone: "The initial
goodwill of the global community towards America has eroded now."
In the months ahead, America might find itself pretty much on
its own as far as global allies are concerned in whatever aggressive
actions it chooses to take, especially with regard to the proposed
"pre-emptive" attack on Iraq by President Bush, who
subsequent to the symposium, received overwhelming Congressional
approval to launch such an attack if he were to decide it was
necessary.

A World War II veteran in the audience had
very definite ideas of the way things should have been and should
be in America: "Why weren't we ready?" he said. "We
have to `Divide and conquer.' The civilized world chooses to wait
and not take pre-emptive action. Pleading for pacifism will be
the first mistake. Every culture has its barbaric and stupid characters,
as well as its good ones." He was applauded.

Jim Fowler, the naturalist and host of the
"Wild Kingdom" television program, concluded the diversity
discussion with one of the best quotes of the day: "If we
do not have diversity, we will become extinct," he said.
The intentional parallels to the animal world did not go unnoticed,
and his observation drew welcome laughter.

Mr. Fowler, who introduced each panel with an abundance of good
humor, has long presented the American public and millions around
the globe via satellite TV with information about wildlife and
the wilderness in programs like Mutual of Omaha's "Wild Kingdom.
Mr. Fowler is a frequent guest and speaker at fundraising events
throughout the country, supporting zoos, conservation organizations,
nature science centers, and state and federal wildlife agencies.

There was something innately trustworthy about a man whose love
of humanity has been enhanced by his close encounters with animals
of diverse kinds - and the natural world. His connection to the
natural world also provoked thoughts of preserving it and all
the wonderful creatures in it, as we enter yet another dangerous
phase in the history of mankind.

(On October 8th, 2002, Mr. Fowler appeared on the "Today
Show" with a beautiful baby tiger: "A work of art,"
he said as he petted it, "Irreplaceable." Many animal
species face extinction, including tigers. In a recent editorial
in The New York Times, Colonel Wakefield, director of Kabini
River Lodge in Karnataka, India, said: "If the tiger is to
be saved it will be in India. The real threat to Kabini's tigers
is not poaching but rather the pressure of a growing population.
How long will the voters in the world's biggest democracy allow
wildlife to occupy wilderness needed for homes and crops?")

The remarks of Mr. Anderson, Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Fowler about
diversity and the threat to it - brought back memories of the
America that was, before 9/11: the formal "lip-service"
openness and tolerance of all religions, creeds and colors, despite
occasional lapses in actual practice. Disturbing images replayed
of Sikhs being attacked in towns across America in the days following
9/11, and of temples mistaken for mosques desecrated by those
who were too ignorant to know that they were attacking Hindu,
not Muslim, places of worship, and that some Hindus, like the
Sikhs, wear turbans. Attacking places of worship should be out
of bounds anyway, no matter what. Educating ourselves more thoroughly,
pulling down the walls of insularity and ignorance will be part
of doing a better job of understanding the rest of the world,
so that they in turn view us differently. Understanding diversity,
not just paying lip-service to it and engaging in real communication
with other cultures, was the valuable message of these gentlemen.

In the wake of 9/11, anti-American sentiment is mounting in foreign
countries as the hunt for Bin Laden continues, and war with Iraq
becomes a certainty. Americans have not traveled as freely around
the globe in the past year, and in many countries they have been
advised to return home to ensure their safety. This is not a "free"
existence for Americans, but a fearful one.

Many poor people in "developing" countries - which include
Middle Eastern ones - are uneducated but have access to TV or
communal TVs. These countries happen to contain millions of children
who go to bed hungry, other millions who lay dying of aids and
curable diseases, others whose fathers spend most of their lives
unemployed or who work for less than subsistence wages and whose
mothers do not work at all. Many of these women do not even have
the right to vote. For millions of women - especially Muslim women
- around the world, such things are the stuff of dreams.

What the media in the United States does not show the rest of
the world is America's poverty.

On September 29th, 2002, a New York Times
front page article entitled "In Trenches of a War on Unyielding
Poverty" stated that 32.9 million Americans live in poverty,
11.7 million of them under 18 years of age." By any standards
this is a shocking statistic for the world's "wealthiest"
nation. Millions of American children also go to bed hungry at
night and are homeless. America helps millions around the world
financially, but Donald Marron, President of UBS America and vice
chairman of the Museum of Modern Art put it very directly in the
"Business and Finance" panel: "I hope we don't
forget the problems in this country and this city. There are many
homeless children right here in New York."

The "Business and Finance" panelists
also included former New York State Senator Roy Goodman, Cathleen
Black, President, Hearst Magazines, (described by Fortune Magazine
as one of thirty most powerful women in America), Lynn Paine,
John G. McLean Professor of Economics, Harvard Business School,
and Gordon Conway, President of the Rockefeller Foundation, who
headed straight for the topic of global poverty: "Poverty
is not something that we can turn our backs on," said a man
who is responsible for awarding $ 140 million a year in grants.
"Do poverty levels play a role in international animosity?
What are the ethical responsibilities of wealthy nations?"
were questions posed directly to the audience by Conway. He was
a no-holds-barred, riveting speaker, and possibly the most popular
speaker of the day.

Launching into the statistics of AIDS in Africa, Mr. Conway said
half the teachers and one in three students are going to die.
Mothers continue to transmit AIDS to their babies when one dose
of Novipirine taken by the mother before breast-feeding her infant
- at a cost of $4 - will prevent it from happening. He added that
millions of children will be orphaned. What was chilling about
Mr. Conway's statistics was that he was only talking about Africa:
India, (population 1 billion), China (1.5 billion) and Russia
are also facing an alarming rise in HIV/Aids .

A member of the audience asked Mr. Conway if he was an optimist.
"I guess that is why I was chosen as President of the Rockefeller
Foundation," he responded to considerable applause. "We
have been getting better. Peace is breaking out in Africa. There
is enormous potential in science and technology: biotech has invented
a new, genetically-engineered rice, which generates 3 tons per
hectare instead of the current 1 ton per hectare. It requires
half the amount of water to grow and grows twice as fast. This
new rice will allow Africa to be self-sufficient. Those stories
give me hope."

Another member of the audience who had worked with UNAID in Africa
commented that people become more passive with donations and aid,
and that helping them become more responsible for their own development
would be more constructive. Donald Marron responded: "Money
goes in and does not get to the people. Most often, it is the
smaller NGOs and organizations that work better than the large
ones." He did say categorically that not helping at all was
not an option for the world's wealthiest nation.

Sincere efforts to render aid are often thwarted by corruption
and greed. Mogadishu was a case in point, as portrayed in the
movie "Black Hawk Down" (see The
City Review article). Somali war-lords were willing to starve
their own people out, blocking and stealing the food sent in by
the United Nations and other major aid organizations, so they
could profit from the sales. In the end American soldiers were
sent in to capture a warlord but the situation went right back
to the way it had been before the American intervention.

To those positioned away from the fertile lands
and secure shores of America, the rising resentment in poor nations
is palpable, because they think America is detached from their
pain and suffering. "The world has seen the opulence of suburban
America. We build bigger and bigger houses, drive bigger and bigger
SUVs and this causes some to want to rub our noses in the mud,"
said Lynn Paine, John G. McLean Professor of Business Administration,
Harvard Business School.

Cathleen Black, President of Hearst Magazines, continued with
observations of the way other cultures perceive at least one aspect
of American culture, music as portrayed on MTV: "I have a
teenage son," she said, "and there is J-Lo shaking everything
and Emenem and Pdiddy. They are available for the viewing of everyone."
Ms. Black commented that in her line of work she has traveled
extensively. To those who do move around the globe, the way America
is perceived worldwide is very different to the view Americans
have of themselves here at home.

The lyrics and gyrations of popular music culture are often bewildering
and offensive to Western parents, let alone a veiled Muslim mother
in a burkha, who is not allowed to show her face or even an ankle!
Other cultures silently judge us by how we show ourselves to them
through the media. While we may brush lewd and violent lyrics
aside in the name of "freedom of expression," there
are those who condemn - and rage at us silently - for allowing
it. It is deeply offensive to them.

Conway's views drew the loudest applause, most especially his
remarks about the festering deprivation faced by women in developing
nations; they must, he stressed, have safe abortions: "We
must raise the standards of women." Thunderous applause.

Former State Senator Roy Goodman was inspired by this comment
to offer the opinion that while he agreed with his President on
other issues, like the need for pre-emptive action against Iraq,
he did not agree with the President on abortion. An anti-war comment
from the audience set the senator off on a preamble that lasted
a good while. Senators do love the sound of their own voices but
his argument suddenly tightened into one of the more "meaty"
opinions of the day, revealing the astute politician beneath the
affable exterior.

Firmly rebutting anti-war talk, Roy Goodman said: "I strongly
support the President's initiative not to allow the threat of
bioweapons." Catherine Black asked if he thought Bush would
get the support he needed, to which Roy Goodman replied: "Sadaam
Hussein has to be stopped. Not to try and stop him by a certain
element in our society reminds me of those who did not want to
try and stop Hitler because of how he might retaliate." Goodman
added that he also supported enlightened nation-building, as for
example, in Afghanistan.

Three of the five "Business and Finance" panelists were
directly involved in the "commercial" aspects of daily
existence i.e., business - and it was a matter of time before
someone brought up Enron and ethics in corporate America. "Harvard
Business School has educated all of our business leaders; is there
any sign that things are changing?" Cathleen Black asked
Lynn Paine, who responded: "We have done unconscionable things
to people in other countries. Students are just as appalled as
we are. There is a new resolve to do a better job. Will more Enrons
occur? Yes. Is there misconduct? 75% of our students say yes,
and that the conduct is so serious that if it were to be known
it would violate public trust. I am not too optimistic. Some companies
are getting very serious about improving ethics, but it needs
to become more deeply embedded in our leaders."

Donald Marron cut in at this point, clearly unable to bear the
onslaught on his profession: "The vast majority (of business
leaders) are ethical. With the advent of CNN and business news
- and technology - public participation increased. When things
go wrong, it is a matter of the wrong people buying the wrong
stocks with the wrong money. The 'watchdog' aspect was not there
with Enron. The wealthier people were open to temptation, and
they are the ones who end up with authority." He added: "The
biggest cost has been the confidence of the American people. We
have to fix that."

The ticket out of poverty for many in other countries is terrorism.
In his opening remarks to the symposium's afternoon session, Shashi
Tharoor, Under Secretary General of the United Nations for communications
and public information, noted that many know no other story, no
other history or truth but the one they learn by rote: "The
creed of the Koran and the kalashnikov: the Koran crudely written,
the kalashnikov crudely made." He also said "Those who
feel mired by hopelessness and rage clutch at terrorism. The pilots
of 9/11 were not poor, but they were fuelled by resentment. With
technology, terrorists use the very tools of modernism against
us. Terrorists are our near neighbors, wherever we live."

They hear about American affluence from our
media, or from their village "elders" who inform them
of events in the world beyond their tiny villages and towns if
they do not own a TV, and teach them about jihad and are often
incited to to hate American "corruption" and "decadence."

"After 9/11 there was no easy retreat
into isolationism," said Mr. Tharoor, echoing Gordon Conway's
views: "9/11 made it clear that a small dusty hut in one
corner of our global village can strike down two mighty towers
in another part of our global village. If we cannot hit him where
he is strong, let us hit him where he is vulnerable. Terrorism
is bred from the scourge of desperation, poverty and famine. Where
there is human insecurity, terrorism flourishes." However,"
he said, "a shared sense of purpose has united us."
It is a fact that 9/11 united America almost overnight.

The most heated and lively debates took place between the "Science
and Spirituality" panelists, who were skillfully moderated
by Praveen Chaudhari, director of research for IBM, when the heat
looked like it might boil over! Ah, dissension is so essential
to a meaningful existence.

Mr. Chaudri, an involved member of the Virtue Foundation, was
introduced by an awed Jim Fowler: "This man's qualifications
and credentials should be read by everyone." Most impressive
of all was his gentleness and wisdom, fleshed out by wit and humor.
In his introductory remarks Mr. Chaudhari said: "Science
and Spirituality have a universal quality: they are two sides
of the same coin." Clearly most people do not make that deduction,
which is probably why he said it. "Buddha and Christ knew
the truth and lived it; Hitler and Lenin knew it but did not live
it, which resulted in death, destruction and cruelty. You can
use science to heal children or destroy the world. The coming
together of people on 9/11 showed love and compassion, and the
spiritual aspects of their lives. Why can we not do this all the
time? Is it possible to maintain such compassion? Buddha and Christ
did, but what about us?"

Mr. Chaudri then introduced Dr. Joan LaRovere, who is a member
of the Virtue Foundation and is Associate Director of the Pediatric
Cardiac Intensive Care Unit at the Royal Brompton Hospital in
London.

Seated one away from Dr. LaRovere was Ken Woodward,
Religion and Culture Editor of Newsweek Magazine. Right off the
bat there was a healthy tension between the two, spliced by the
strong visionary views of Dr. William T. Newsome, professor of
neurobiology at Stanford University. After Mr. Chaudhari had given
the job descriptions of his scientific colleagues, he mischievously
asked Mr. Woodward: "What background do you have in science?"
to which Woodward replied: "I always shroud my ignorance."
The audience erupted in laughter.

Dr. LaRovere offered the first round of personal observations
regarding the link between science and faith. "My line of
work makes you think about the aspect of existence beyond the
usual one, beyond the physical self. Pediatric surgery is an environment
of personal tragedy. I witness peoples' tragedy all the time.
Sometimes it is hard to leave home, leave my own family at 2 in
the morning to take care of a sick child, but as a human being
I have a duty to do it." Dr. LaRovere went on to say that
her Buddhist faith helped her at difficult times, when she needed
something to lean on. It would be difficult to contemplate a more
emotionally draining environment than pediatric surgery, and I
was relieved that Dr. LaRovere had something to support her. Mr.
Woodward, however, had a big problem with the whole" universal"
Buddhist thing, and lost no time in saying so.

"The word 'universal' irritates me no end," he said
contentiously, "Jews only care about themselves whereas Buddhists
care about everything. There is glory in the 'particular.' T.S.
Eliot's poetry is not universal at all, it is particular."
Woodward was on a roll: "Aristotle considered humility as
a virtue. Americans stress the expressional side of religion:
spirituality is not the only thing about religion. Medievalists
believed that if you are in the midst of your monastic meditation
and a beggar comes to the door, if you do not take care of him
you are not in contact with God."

Dr. LaRovere disagreed outright with him that all the religions
were different. There were more similarities between them in her
view, which caused Mr. Woodward to launch into his own defence:
"9/11 witnessed extraordinary people who went and worked
in groups in the morgue, collecting body parts. It takes a certain
kind of person to do that. They were tough and empathetic, and
they asked for a clergyman to be with them. These people were
sharply contrasted by those who suddenly got spiritual because
terrible things happen. This happens all the time in other countries.
Were they not formed in communities where they were told evil
people exist?"

Later Mr. Woodward went so far as to say that meditation removes
the sense of purpose, apparently missing the point Dr. LaRovere
was making, which was that her faith helped her do her extraordinarily
demanding work. "If your reading of reality is rooted in
Christianity, then you cannot relate to Buddhism. I cannot relate
to it at all. It is a large, boring abstraction. Buddhism does
not have a strong 'community' ethic. Get off the wheel. I do not
have a great urge to become Universal."

Mr. Chaudhari jumped in and declared that "Ken and I part
company on this; fundamentally human beings are the same. Though
the structure is different, the core is the same. Religious texts
are almost identical, and the message is the same. Anyone truly
religious will sense and see the connections."

Then, Dr. Newsome added his comments, offering the information
that he was a man of faith, a practicing Christian: "I could
take the position that my group is threatened, so I am going to
hate those who have hurt me. Psychology has helped us understand
the deepest sources of hate, and biology might have something
to say about that. In my line of work I can advise someone if
the mate of their choice is a good genetic match, but I cannot
tell them if they love that person." "I'm looking for
allies,," he continued, "a vision that leads to a common
humanity. It must be a global vision. Trite, but it cannot be
wrapped up in my nuclear family and country. My happiness is linked
to others' happiness everywhere in the world. It is necessary
for global survival: science dedicated to the pursuit of truth."

A nostalgic vision voiced not by an elderly hippie of wonderful
times past, but a brilliant, grounded man of science and faith
who is a professor of neurobiology at one of the most highly regarded
educational institutions in the world. There is hope for us all.

The last word for this panel discussion must go to Dr. Parveen
Chaudhari, who concluded with the observation that, despite the
often acrid disagreements, "I didn't hear anyone say we should
not have religion or spirituality, or that science is bad. That
is a good thing."

Sadly, it was not possible to capture every great thought and
bon mot in a discussion of the caliber of this one. It
would be appropriate to end with Shashi Tharoor's broad global
perspective, spiced with a novelist's genius (Mr. Tharoor is the
author of several best-selling novels) : "Those who feel
mired by hopelessness and rage clutch at terrorism." In the
interests of peace and unity, the wealthy nations of the world
are going to have to take a long, hard look at poverty everywhere.
Including America.

The Virtue Foundation, (www.virtuefoundation.org)
is an independent, non-profit organization "dedicated to
advancing the research and development of a body of universal
ethics that transcends such boundaries as race, culture, gender
and religion."

Its "objective" statement provides
the following commentary:

"Driven primarily by the rapid advancements
in technology and communictions over the last few decades, the
world has evolved into a global and interdependent community.
In an unprecedented age where political and economic events in
one region of the world bear significant and sometimes tragic
repercussions thousands of miles away (as witnessed by the events
of September 11), it is no longer possible for any nation to remain
an island of prosperity in the midst of a sea of adversity. Against
the backdrop of a world marked by diminishing borders and clashing
ideologies, the necessity of collectively developing and formulating
universal standards of ethical behavior has suddenly become an
urgent priority that can no longer be ignored. As citizens of
the world, human beings across the globe need to look beyond the
racial, cultural, political and religious differences that divide
them and focus instead on that which is truly universal among
humankind."

Stepping back from the immediacy and closeness
of being a New Yorker in New York on 9/11, the word "diversity"
produced the feeling that 9/11 was, in essence, an attack on the
American way of life - on American culture, values, civilization,
religion and race - the very "boundaries" that the universal
ethics advocated by the Virtue Foundation hoped to transcend.
The characteristics that make an "American" clearly
did not find favor with the terrorists. Had our "diversity"
anything to do with their antagonism? Our freedoms and tolerance
of diversity are in stark contrast to the Fundamentalist Muslim
credo of "Jihad" as advocated by their narrow interpretation
of the Koran, which entitles them to wage war on us for our societal
values and score points with the Almighty.

When real exchanges betweens nations, cultures
and civilizations cease because of a catastrophic event like 9/11
even in the context of the arts - we lose something vitally important.
Thinking "big picture," what do other cultures judge
America by? Politicians and the media often have ratings, profits,
votes and other interests at stake, but they must make greater
efforts to responsibly represent a wide diversity of visions to
avoid misunderstandings and misconceptions of who we are and what
America is about.